MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 July 2003       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086466

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Yolanda Maldonado		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-2.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that in 1991 Army personnel told him that his RE code was incorrect and that he should have been issued a RE-2.  He contends that the medical officer that treated him in 1987 told him that he could reenlist after six months and that he would give the applicant a code to do so.  He states that since no contact could be made with the original medical officer he has been kept out of the service since then.  He further states that he completed a rehabilitation period of six months and worked heavy jobs.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 24 July 1986 under the delayed entry program.  He entered active duty on 25 June 1987.  

On 7 July 1987, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) diagnosed the applicant as having scoliosis symptomatic.  The EPSBD found the applicant medically unfit for enlistment in accordance with current medical fitness standards and determined that his back condition existed prior to service.  The EPSBD recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11.  On 16 July 1987, in his own hand, the applicant concurred with the proceedings and requested to be discharged from the U.S. Army without delay.  The unit commander recommended discharge and the discharge authority directed that the applicant be discharged from the Army.

On 24 July 1987, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards - no disability.  The applicant had served 1 month of total active service and was issued a RE code of RE-3.  

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 specifically provides that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards, when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entrance on active duty or active duty training or initial entry training will be separated.  A medical proceeding, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within six months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and the medical condition does not disqualify the soldier from retention in the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  The characterization of service for soldiers separated under this provision of regulation will normally be honorable, but will be uncharacterized if the soldier is in an entry level status.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

Paragraph 3-10 of Army Regulation 601-210, in effect at the time, provided that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.

RE-3 applied to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification was waivable.

RE-2 applied to persons fully qualified for enlistment who were separated before completing a contracted period of service and whose reenlistment was not contemplated.   

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant was properly discharged on 24 July 1987 in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that in 1991 Army personnel told him that his RE code was incorrect and that he should have been issued a RE-2.  However, evidence of record shows the applicant was found medically unfit for enlistment.  The governing regulation in effect at the time states that 
RE-2 applied to persons fully qualified for enlistment.

4.  The RE code used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

5.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was in error or unjust.  
6.  The Board considered the applicant's contention that he needs his RE code changed to allow him to reenlist.  However, RE-3 is waivable for the purpose of reenlistment.  Therefore, if he still desires to reenter the Army, the Board recommends that he contact his local recruiter to determine if he is eligible for applying for a waiver under current enlistment criteria. 

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

AAO____  YM_____  JPI_____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086466	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030724	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.